AuthorTopic: Bruce Willis and Copyright (Read 3299 times)

If you caught the stuff about Bruce Willis and his downloads that he now realises he can't bequeath to his daughters, have you an opinion?

As far as I can understand it, all you get (legally) is the right to play the downloads yourself. So, were it not Willis, but a zero person who dies and leaves his music machines behind - as folks usually do unless they are Pharaohs - would their following generation be held up as thieves if they played the old recordings? The zero person's departure wouldn't be know to Apple, unlike when Willis waves ciao.

Yes, there's the letter of the contract, but there is also a moral at work here.

Does anyone remember how Apple presented the faux ownership of itune music?

Personally I've never bought into buying MP3's. Even at .99cents a track I never thought they compared in value to an actual CD. But I tend to read the fine print a bit more than the average guy. Most of us here probably do.

So to me the key is in how Apple has sold and continues to sell their music. Are they using terms like "buying" which implies ownership or "rent for life" which is what they're now trying to tell us it is. Apple can't have it both ways. One way to maximize profit when people buy, and another to maximize profit when they die.

I'm also curious what happens to the customer when Apple fails to renegotiate contracts with the studios/artists and they pull their rights to the music. I've heard of this happening several times. Do the customers get refunded? And if so, 100%? Or do they prorate the refund based on actuarial tables of the customers remaining years? And if they're doing that.. how about when you buy? Does a itune for 12 year old cost less than an itune for a 90 year old?

It's going to be an interesting fight. Apple would be expected to have set policy before collecting money.

I'm also curious what happens to the customer when Apple fails to renegotiate contracts with the studios/artists and they pull their rights to the music. I've heard of this happening several times.

One theory is that it should disappear from your iPod/etc., since you don't own it. There was an e-book equivalent a few years ago; here's an extract from The New York Times article about it:

In George Orwell’s “1984,” government censors erase all traces of news articles embarrassing to Big Brother by sending them down an incineration chute called the “memory hole.”

On Friday, it was “1984” and another Orwell book, “Animal Farm,” that were dropped down the memory hole — by Amazon.com.

In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique, Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.

An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not have rights to them, using a self-service function. “When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers’ devices, and refunded customers,” he said.

Trouble is, I find myself with great sympathy towards the fight for freedom, but not when it comes to the idea of somebody using my work for free.

Displaying something isn't the same thing as offering it up for unlimited use which, in many cases, equates with abuse. Because you might take your pretty girlfriend for a walk in the park doesn't mean you are inviting everyone in the park to rape her. Would it be logical to say that you should keep her prisoner, in public disguise, as some already do? Is there something here to learn from other cultures?

Trouble is, I find myself with great sympathy towards the fight for freedom, but not when it comes to the idea of somebody using my work for free.

Displaying something isn't the same thing as offering it up for unlimited use which, in many cases, equates with abuse. Because you might take your pretty girlfriend for a walk in the park doesn't mean you are inviting everyone in the park to rape her. Would it be logical to say that you should keep her prisoner, in public disguise, as some already do? Is there something here to learn from other cultures?

Rob C

I could not agree more with the first part; but things are a bit more "gray area" then.

I do not think the girlfriend example applies here: we are talking about digital content, that you can replicate it as many times as you want, and still keep the original to yourself; just because someone copies your image / song / book does not mean you can no longer use your own copy. There is a monetary loss, of course; but that is not the issue here.

Problem is we are no longer buying physical objects, we are just paying for licenses; and the licensing terms are no longer clear to the average Joe. If I buy a paper book, I know I cannot make a photocopy and pass it around; but I can lend it to a friend. However, an ebook is cryptographically attached to my reader, and I cannot lend the book unless I pass the reader. Same with digital music (hence the article): the MP3 files that I purchase are linked to my account, and will disappear when I pass along.

And then come the draconian rules, like College Books that are licensed only for the duration of the course: as soon as the semester ends, you are no longer allowed to read it; or those readers that can delete the books you purchased, just because you made something that someone did not like.

This is not about someone misusing your images, this is about citizens becoming mere consumers.